Americans are baffled:
why oh why are Muslims up in arms over a YouTube video, one which no
one in America even knew about prior to the attack on our Libyan
consulate and the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens? Having
abandoned their own religion sometime in the last century or so, they
just don’t understand why someone would get all hopped up over
a little thing like blasphemy — after all, all one has to do
is turn on the TV or view the latest Madonna music video and you’ll
get a full dose of it.

Of course, this isn’t
true for everyone: in Flyover Country, the rubes still persist in
the faith of their fathers, and our elites pander to that whenever
they must. However, the Georgetown cocktail party circuit and the
world of the Washington power brokers isn’t a notably devout
milieu: it is instead decidedly secular, and tinged with more than a
little contempt for those Flyover Folks who must be pandered to
around election time.

This is one major
reason for Washington’s incomprehension when it comes to
understanding the wave of hatred for the US currently sweeping the
Middle East. That complete cluelessness is endemic, too, in the US
media, where reporters are no different than the elites they cover
in their militantly secular outlook. So when a deliberately
insulting video depicting the prophet Mohammed goes out over the
internet, after its makers made a determined effort to get Muslims
to view it, they scratch their heads and say they just don’t
get it.

Even as the protests
spread, they insist it just can’t be about what Muslim
protesters say it’s about: it’s all just a “flimsy”
excuse, as Reason magazine editor Matt
Welchtold “national security Democrat”
Heather Hurlburt. The US response, he went on to aver, was “not
a robust statement of American values.” It was, instead, “kick
me, please” rhetoric from a spineless Obama administration.
This is a fair summation of the general right-wing response to the
crisis, limning the Romney campaign, and over at the Weekly
Standard the neocons concur:

“What we have
seen unfold in the Middle East over the last week is what
distinguishes the region’s societies from our own. The
protests in Cairo and Benghazi were not really about the film, the
preacher, or Muslim sensitivities. They were an exercise in raw
power politics, partly aimed at intramural rivals in the Arab
political sphere, but mainly against the United States.”

Like Welch, the
Standard found attempts by the White House to remind YouTube
of its terms of service agreement “appalling.” Like
Welch, the magazine claims the protests are about something other
than what the protesters themselves say they’re about. This
view isn’t limited to the political right, however: it’s
just what Rachel Maddow and some other Deep Thinkers on the left
have been saying. Forget the video, we’re told: it’s not
about that. It was all a pre-planned carefully-thought-out al-Qaeda
operation, in effect another 9/11 — maybe not as spectacular,
but hey it happened on the same day. Now that the
administration is denying this, however, I bet we’ll be
hearing much less about that particular theory from Rachel and the
other partisan shills at MSNBC.

In any case, the
Standard is right about one thing: the riots now threatening
the security of US diplomats throughout the Muslim world do indeed
dramatize what distinguishes the region’s societies from our
own, and it’s all about the role of religion in society.

Yes, I know, it’s
hard to believe: how could any civilized person take seriously the
impulse to achieve transcendence and find meaning in the universe
besides the pursuit of pleasure, fame, and money? I mean, really!
How primitive can you get? Didn’t that kind of superstition go
out with corsets, free silver, and the horse and buggy?

A society in which
blasphemy is impermissible is inconceivable to the warlords of
Washington, who, after all, live in the same society you and I do:
one in which religion is increasingly pushed to the margins and
regarded by the country’s elites with ill-concealed contempt.
It’s a culture in which gays want to get married, straights
are setting records for divorce, and the way to appeal to women in
an election year is to make it easier for them to kill their
unwanted babies. It is, in short, a culture so far removed from the
“medieval” world of our recently conquered Middle
Eastern satraps that the distance can only be measured in centuries
rather than mere miles.

In the modern world,
physical distance is no barrier to empire-building on the other side
of the globe: however, this only exacerbates the problems created by
the incalculable cultural distance between Washington, D.C., and the
somewhat run-down suburb of Benghazi, in Libya, where a mob took the
lives of four Americans.

The Romans never had
this problem. Although they were just as decadent as we aspire to
be, and soon abandoned the pagan faith of their fathers, they
understood the mindset of their less “advanced”
subjects: the German barbarians, who worshipped their violent and
storm-driven gods, the Jews who prayed to a single G-d and awaited
the arrival of His Messenger, the mystic cultists who performed
their secrets rites in honor of Isis, Demeter, and Bacchus, the
Greek deities who quarreled like spoiled children and started wars
to amuse themselves at mankind’s expense. Religion of one sort
or another permeated every province and client state of the Roman
Empire, and in the Imperial City there was little division between
the religious and the political spheres: the Roman emperor was
himself considered a god, or at least divine in the formal sense,
and was often given a religious title to buttress his legitimacy in
the eyes of the populace.

In the modern West,
where the only god is Mammon, the riots over those Danish cartoons
were “a round of silliness,” as Welch described them.
Hardly a surprising opinion from the editor of a magazine that has
always been hostile to religion — hence its title — but
it’s fair to say this about sums up the general opinion of
most Americans, which is why Welch is perfectly within his rights to
advocate “a more American response” from Washington —
and, although he doesn’t say so, it isn’t hard to
imagine what the
spirit if not the exact text of that oh-so-American
response might be.

No, it’s not
just about the video: there’s America’s relationship with the Arab world to consider, and specifically with Libya,
Egypt, Yemen, and many of the other countries where rioters are
burning our flag and assaulting our embassies. In Libya, we
installed their present government and are keeping them on life
support through “foreign aid” and “democracy
promotion” grants. In Yemen, we’re bombing them: in
Egypt, we’re trying to influence their elections, and they’re
on the take from us to the tune of over a billion every year. We
are, in short, at the center of their world — and yet not of
it, indeed distinctly alien to it.

Murray Rothbard was
one of the few libertarians who understood the major role religion
has played in human societies, and his History of Economic
Thought is a monument to that centrality: his analysis furthers
an understanding not only of economic history but of all human
history. Libertarians, plagued by a militant atheism from the very
outset, have stoutly ignored a key aspect of what motivates humans
to act as they do, and this has crippled our ability to not only
understand but to change the world.

The specifics
surrounding how Innocence of Muslims came to the
attention of the Muslim world are only now just coming to light, but
a
phone call from Egyptian Coptic activist Morris Sadek
to an Egyptian journalist reportedly had a lot to do with it. The
declared intent of the film’s makers and promoters wasn’t
to convince ordinary Americans of the deadly threat supposedly
represented by Islam, it was to market the movie to Muslims
in the hopes some would be instantaneously converted — and they also
thought it would be possible to smoke out the secret terrorist
“cells” film promoter Steve Klein is convinced are
embedded in California and just waiting for the command to strike.

What’s important
to note here is that the film’s originators actively sought to
promote the film in the Muslim world: it was, in short, a deliberate
provocation. Laden with sexual innuendo and outright obscenity, the
film isn’t just “amateurish,” as many commentators
have noted: there is a leering quality that underscores its
calculated depravity and which gives us an important clue to what
the video’s creators hoped to accomplish.

The whole story isn’t
out there yet. We need to dig deeper into what drove the creators of
this cinematic incitement to violence, and discover who funded it,
who organized it, and why. Only then can we begin to understand how
a YouTube video nobody in America paid any attention to has suddenly
threatened to upend American interests and prestige around the
world.

2012041651104 Responseshttp%3A%2F%2Foriginal.antiwar.com%2Fjustin%2F2012%2F09%2F16%2Fblasphemy-and-empire%2FBlasphemy+and+Empire2012-09-17+06%3A00%3A24Justin+Raimondo%2F%3Fp%3D2012041651 to “Blasphemy and Empire”

Dig deeper is right. This hole has just got started being excavated. The whole thing is very fishy to me. Why would Copts do this when their people would be the targets? Justin this is one hell of an essay. I can define atheism in 3 senteces. We come from nothing. We are here for no reason. We are going nowhere. Is it any wonder most of the world's people look for some answer in religion? Our atheist friends sure don't have any. Don't talk to me about religious wars either.The atheists have killed far more people in the last 200 years, then all the religious wars in history.

J.R,you have lots said in your article and much rightly as always.Before this I finished reading another article by Mr.Douthat exprssing exactly those of Mammons views.Anyway to dig deeper finally we will find some sort of sources who are hell bent on materialising Clash of Civilisation and further more hoping for 21 December 2012 End of World prophecy making true,with one little exception that and that is not ending their world but the world on the other side of the globe.I say M.I.C is the culprit who from the very begining has been staging wars as business for profit and guess what can provide better opportunity than teasing others for their faith and religions.

But look at the timing. Exactly when both the ECB and The Federal Reserve was to publicize their big "Quantitative Easings" around Spt. 11th, these uproars are generated, so that the home crowds could forget about the ongoings and talk about these "surprising" mthreats from the muslim world.

The movie itself was very strangely produced, likke so often in the US with CIA-like types operating, paying in cash only, and giving some fishy person from own connections the actual responsibility..

But look at the timing. Exactly when both the ECB and The Federal Reserve was to publicize their big "Quantitative Easings" around Spt. 11th, these uproars are generated, so that the home crowds could forget about the ongoings and talk about these "surprising" mthreats from the muslim world.

The movie itself was very strangely produced, likke so often in the US with CIA-like types operating, paying in cash only, and giving some fishy person from own connections the actual responsibility..

At this point in time it is foolish to talk about US prestige in the world, mainly because its response to every crises from the 9/11 attacks to the WikiLeaks disclosures has revealed an ill informed, immature and often vindictive national temperament.
As to whether the US sits at the centre of world affairs, even this is now questionable. The one billion dollars given to the new Egyptian regime for example is dwarfed by the four billions donated by Saudi Arabia. Surely this fact alone undermines any claims of US hegemony in the region.
A poster on last Friday's comments thread meanwhile pointed out albeit indirectly, that the present Republican Presidential candidate subscribes to a religion which espouses 'end times'.
Most Americans will probably go into the November elections unaware of this disturbing reality though, preoccupied instead with the suspicion that Obama might be a secret Muslim.
No small wonder that bafflement is widespread.

At this point in time it is foolish to talk about US prestige in the world, mainly because its response to every crises from the 9/11 attacks to the WikiLeaks disclosures has revealed an ill informed, immature and often vindictive national temperament.
As to whether the US sits at the centre of world affairs, even this is now questionable. The one billion dollars given to the new Egyptian regime for example is dwarfed by the four billions donated by Saudi Arabia. Surely this fact alone undermines any claims of US hegemony in the region.
A poster on last Friday's comments thread meanwhile pointed out albeit indirectly, that the present Republican Presidential candidate subscribes to a religion which espouses 'end times'.
Most Americans will probably go into the November elections unaware of this disturbing reality though, preoccupied instead with the suspicion that Obama might be a secret Muslim.
No small wonder that bafflement is widespread.

Thanks for the article. Libertarians in those countries have already targeted both the need for secular democracy and formal freedom of religion as key and that is at the root of much of the change, and the focus of action there.

Certainly, a perspective which I NEVER expected to see articulated on antiwar.com; that religion is, in fact, an important motivator of human behavior.

My sincerest appreciation and congratulations to Mr. Raimondo.

But, taking it just ONE step further, it is the flawed *theologies* of the monotheistic religions–Judaism, Christianity AND Islam–which are at the foundation of these political conflicts; conflicts that could actually be RESOLVED were it widely known that Isaiah, Daniel, Jesus and Mohammed taught the Doctrine of "resurrection" as a Doctrine of 'Rebirth'…

Despite the inevitable, universal, relentlessly cynical and vicious response such an assertion triggers amongst the "secular elites" who ALREADY "don't get it".

It was both – the years of meddling, the favortism to Zionism, the callous indifference to the killing of Muslims and – then the movie. The final insult. A nasty divorce doesn't come after a single quarrel, but it always culiminates in one. And that is what the "clever" folks haven't conceeded yet – this was the final straw that broke the back of American influence over the Muslim World. No need to figure out how to "get back tyogether"; just pack your junk.

This is one of Justin's all time best. I've always thought of outrage and violence on the part of some (a very small minority) muslims over things like this as "the straw that broke the camel's back."

Anyone living in the region has every right to be utterly furious at the brutal treatment they have received from "The West" over the last century. While there is a long history of conflict, it is a more recent development-with the need for oil-that the major powers have managed the political life of everyone in the M.E., and frequently engaged in "policy" that had it taken place 1000 miles to the NW would be considered criminal.

The people in Libya are for the most part incapable of effecting US policy in any meaningful way-they could not stop Qaddafi's rise or fall. Such political helplessness hitched to officially sanctioned brutality breeds a slow anger that seeks an outlet.

When something outrageous occurs-like the over-the-top production of an insulting film, it pushes significant numbers over the edge. The religious anger is very real-so is the political anger. Both are justified, and I suspect that the former would rarely end in violence without the latter.

I would say that one aspect of the piece is a bit off-base. Justin gives far too much credit for "reason" to the supposedly secularized intelligentsia. These people are not really atheist or agnostic and they are not driven by material gain alone. No, they have a god and his name is not wealth but power. They worship the state-and they are quite capable of condemning blasphemy, ask Bradley Manning. If only the god was simply wealth, we might have a hope for peace.

I don't see much evidence that the 'U.S.' claims to be Christian in any way though there is certainly a pretense. A genuflection towards Christian belief is evident here in a manner analogous to 'respect' for the defunct US constitution. But very few Americans really believe or even comprehend the basics of the faith, for example love your neighbor as yourself, or heaven forbid, love your enemy. We see the secular war flag hanging on church platforms for congregations whose Christian morality is no different than that of a Hollywood movie cast. The real U.S. religion is deee..mocracy, taught to the children for an entire school career complete with socialistic rituals such as the morning pledge.
Justin is correct to highlight 'the pursuit of pleasure, fame, and money', which is at the heart of the American blind reverence for government. Unfortunately, for some time Americans pursued these using decent means, but today the pursuit is almost completely reduced to the means of plunder. No wonder the Mohammedans hate us.

J R is right – much of the Muslim world is religious to a degree that is alien to most westerners. Islam is to Muslims what Christianity was to Medieval Europeans, and they now find themselves mired in much of the same backwards as a result.

Which is all the more reason to not back down to Muslim calls for censorship in the West. We didn't throw off the shackles of religion just to put them back on for the sake of Muslim insecurities.

Besides, Muslim "outrage" at "blasphemy" is a load of contrived nonsense anyway. What could be more blasphemous than a car bomb attack on a mosque after friday prayers? Yet the Muslim world watches with indifference as Shiites and Suffis have their houses of worship destroyed by Salafists and Wahabbis.

And let's not ignore the racism of low expectations that is always at play here. If a bunch of white American Christians rioted in the streets of US cities of over an insult to their faith by an Imam, and burned mosques and lynched Muslims in the process, we would liken them to the Nazis and the Night of Broken Glass. When Muslims riot in the same juvenile way, there's a sense of "what do you expect?" about it, and we are treated to endless calls for "understanding" and more than a few who advocate we censor ourselves so as to not set off the lunatics.

Truth is, we are encouraged to approach issues of "blasphemy" towards Islam with the assumption in mind that these folks are hopelessly backwards and slightly insane. Perhaps that's true, which would be yet another reason to cut all ties with the Muslim world and leave them to their fate.

"The atheists have killed far more people in the last 200 years, then all the religious wars in history."

That's largely because there have been far more people around in the past 200 years thanks to modern science and technological advancement.

If you look at the RATE of killing and death, atheism is by no means the undisputed champ of carnage. Indeed warfare in the pre-industrial age would often kill people at a rate far higher than even the horrors of WWII or Stalin.

a you tube video. This is a youtube video. A few fanatics got their knickers in a knot and you are looking for a deeper meaning. Satanic Verses, Protocols, a new Paul Verhoeven movie about Jesus coming out (Jesus portrayed as the product of a rape) – blasphemous artwork has been around for a long time. In the internet agedo you really expect worldwide protection of everyones sensitivities? Fanatic Muslims (and jews and christians, and atheists) need to learn to govern themselves and keep the peace. Justifying violent reactions to a G-D Damned video on youtube because this targeted religion is uniquely sensitive is wrong. There are as many or more obscenely anti-zionist, anti-semitic videos on youtube than anti Muslim.

Remember the Last Temptation of Christ? Scorsese made a movie which got Christians up in arms. There was a little violence, which probably gave more publicity to the film. The imams must calm down the sheep and they need to govern themselves. attacking the artist/producer is giving a pass to the violence.

Remember the Last Temptation of Christ? Scorsese made a movie which got Christians up in arms. There was a little violence, which probably gave more publicity to the film. The imams must calm down the sheep and they need to govern themselves. attacking the artist/producer is giving a pass to the violence.

Jan I would second you on your thought,but who is asking you or west in general to put back shacles on.As a muslim my first obligation towards you to be NOT COMPULSION IN RELIGION.and not messing with Christianity and Jesus P.B.U.H.,anyway.Therefore I differ with you.Islam and Muslim do not produce rediculous staff about any religion.we can have dialogue about religion but again upto anybody's discretion,talk or leave it alone.My choice let everyone follow their own faith and not messing with it.

The "makers" were clueless and utterly ineffectual for six months. Then suddenly it appeared very efficiently, dubbed into Arabic and reduced to a trailer of insults, everywhere and all at once, two days before 9/11.

The makers suddenly got competent? They suddenly had resources and knowledge they did not have for the last six months?

Or somebody else discovered an unused gem they could exploit?

I go for somebody discovered this and exploited it, somebody a lot more competent and with a lot more resources than the "makers."

The elites are paid not to get it, and then to shovel their misunderstandings onto the public. Meanwhile, in Flyover Country, blasphemy against another religion is fully understood and relished.

It would take a Unitarian or non-denominational Christian to appreciate all the various religions of mankind and to celebrate them. That kind of elite (New England and California based for the most part) has very little effect on what the elites promote, but it represents that reliable and important wine and cheese fundraiser vote in Democratic quadrennial elections. Sometimes it can be fooled into wars that supposedly slay some dragon.

The current official story as it seems to be shaping up is that these attacks were long in the planning by "al Qaeda" (which is to those who read newspapers abundantly clearly funded by the CIA, in Syria and anywhere else it suits them, as they were used in Yugoslavia). The movie is being downplayed as a factor, and of course this would fit in with the myopia of the scribblers and chatterers. They are fundamentally so conservative they cannot believe that some provocation would move any large group of people to anything. They cannot quite believe that Koran burnings are the whole story. But that's where the agents provocateurs are have their edge. They know how saturated the region is with hatred for the West because of drones and other means of control. Just add a little more cause to the mix and voila – the entire brew turns to blood.

But sane people may ask themselves what's the nature of "his" game even as they perceive the Great Satan doing his thing.

A weak analysis. More of a half baked apology for religious violence.
Justin may have become a papist or something, but what does that have to do with the anti Mohammad dime store video? There is a sizable (but minority) of illiterate Muslims who react to every seeming slight to their prophet. Also we see this in some Hindus, who are mostly equally illiterate and in the thrall of their religious leaders. (Also in a few Christians and Jews, though so small as to go unnoticed.) These religo-political "leaders" use any incident to whip up their followrs.
But Justin, doesn't American freedom of religion also emcompass our free speech values? No matter how false or biased? Where is your recognition of that? Instead we ready your implied whine about "secularists" and how the elites just don't get it about faith (a frequent claim in certain fundamentalst circles about how they are "persecuted", poor babies.
Either you believe in freedom of (and from) religion and unfettered free speech or you don't.

I usually agree with Justin. However these endless protests just prove deep down these people do not really believe in their version of superstition ( Islam). If they did they would go about their lives pray and do their duty as far as their faith and then end up in paradise for eternity. Why worry about some obscure film or cartoons. All it is , their leaders are just whipping them up for their own goals. I am not defending our role in that part of the world. But Justin I do not know how much time you have spent in those countries but once the people are in a position to get material goods they are far more materialistic and cut throat then any average American. Just because Americans built a society that is more advanced technologically does not mean we are slaves of 'mammon' it means we built a society where we can have those things easier than in some countries in the Middle East. Go to the Phillipines, or Thailand etc, the behavior of these pious people is absolutely disgusting.

I usually agree with Justin. However these endless protests just prove deep down these people do not really believe in their version of superstition ( Islam). If they did they would go about their lives pray and do their duty as far as their faith and then end up in paradise for eternity. Why worry about some obscure film or cartoons. All it is , their leaders are just whipping them up for their own goals. I am not defending our role in that part of the world. But Justin I do not know how much time you have spent in those countries but once the people are in a position to get material goods they are far more materialistic and cut throat then any average American. Just because Americans built a society that is more advanced technologically does not mean we are slaves of 'mammon' it means we built a society where we can have those things easier than in some countries in the Middle East. Go to the Phillipines, or Thailand etc, the behavior of these pious people is absolutely disgusting.

JB either you are martion or out right ignorant.I have lived in the west for 20 yrs plus.Never once I myself or my follower demanded someone asked to follow what I follow.So that is your waekest point IF NOT then next you will say well if Muslim do not want to rob himself,I will do.or if Muslim don't want to call themselves Idiots,I will do.Is that what you call freedom of speech.

Having said that Please define'' Freedom of Speech''.For me when your moral forefather said freedom of speech as part of your constitution,they meant something else and totally opposite what you people exercise on daily basis.

If I am wrong,then let say HOLOCAUST was merely a claim that equals our present day WMD lie claimed by USG,that has brought the world to this edge.

Taking brits royal lady nude pics,and you morally equates it to FoS.

Common man you can utilise your upper chamber better than this and still be logical in arguments.

Khan, I don't claim that ALL Muslims want blasphemy laws in the West. But the mob certainly does. The president of Egypt does.

Freedom of speech is the right to speak openly about any topic (and yes, that SHOULD include the Holocaust as well). Islam should not be exempt from this, as it is in many Muslim lands.

Incitement to violence ("Go kill that guy!") is another matter, but that's a far cry from suggesting that some 7th century prophet was a fraud. Unfortunately, many Muslims believe that ridiculing Islam IS incitement, and their legal codes punish it harshly. Again, this is medieval crap that we're better off without.

The "secular" elites engineering these conflicts with the Islamic world aren't so secular at all. Their religion is a combination of messianic Zionism and hyper materialism, and this applies on both the right (the Jewish neocons, the Judeo-Christian Zionists and their Big Brother God crony capitalism) and the left (Holocaustianity, Judeophile liberalism and their Big Brother God crony socialism). "God blesses those who bless Israel."

Of course, it's their grand pose that they are secular, objective and scientific, but make no mistake…sneering religious bigotry and delusians of Godly grandeur underlie so much of what they do. That, and protecting "the secrets of the temple" at the Federal Reserve.

Perfectly defined secular (lack of) understanding. World is pulled apart by the manipulation of differences and interests. Religion is just one thing that secular societies do not understand, and think of it as just another lever of influence as needed. Until it spectacularly backfires, and then there is shock and disbelief that people ACTUALLY believe in something bigger them themselves. For in the world of atheists, man — its possesions and power — are the measure of all things.

harr,
I don't think that you see the whole picture here – it is not just this movie – this is just the last straw. Let me put it this way – a guy beats his wife constantly, runs around on her, gives her no money to run the household and then one day he calls her "fat" upon which she puts a knife in him. Why did she finally knife him? Because he called her "fat"?

"Americans are baffled: why oh why are Muslims up in arms over a YouTube video, one which no one in America even knew about prior to the attack on our Libyan consulate and the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens? "

You're right and what is really baffling is how this trailer or trash became an overnight "success" so to speak. Why does the news keep linking to it and playing it over and over again? I'm sure they wouldn't be trying to fan the flames.

I don't see this article as some sort of call to religion; rather, it's a matter of understanding people and what motivates them. Unfortunately most Americans are very insular and have no understanding of other cultures or the historical background that created them. Further, many don't want to understand because they're infected with the disease of American Exceptionalism. It's like that Colonel in Full Metal Jacket who said that "inside every gook is an American trying to get out".

The idea that others don't want to be Americans is something they can't fathom.

And just to be clear: understanding people is NOT the same thing as agreeing with them or justifying everything that they do. But it's critical to dealing with them, whether it's in day-to-day life or in warfare. See Sun Tzu.

Johnny you are right. But we must lump in with the atheists the socialist hordes led by the likes of the Roosevelts, Wilson, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, the whole cast of presidunces and their myrmidons laying false claim to Christian belief. In the '90s I got a laugh out of the Clintons standing on the steps of some church of a Sunday morning, Billy-Bob clutching some huge stage prop Bible. It seemed funny, but it was a very serious pose, – and it worked for him.The murderous support for the imperial government, or maybe just American indifference to it, comes at a great cost and the developed world may be in a terrible state when this cost becomes apparent.
Oh, and Jan B. – Such generalization could be a bit suspect. The rate of murder at Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or in the camps of Nazi Germany, was rather steeper than in most pagan conflicts of any signifigance. Even the Roman legions often got tired of slaying the defeated populace after a victory and the young and viable could make good slaves or miners.

That's a red herring since she can leave him anytime she wants to. If she likes being a 300 pound land whale but does not like it when someone points it out…..then LEAVE! The situation with the nonstop attacks on Christianity is different since it gets attacked no matter WHERE Christians go.

On Tony Blair and the questions you might ask him:
"I think I would have asked him one question, perhaps, and I’d have asked it repeatedly. I’d have asked him about his faith, because we were told, when journalists asked about Blair’s faith, the reply was, 'We don’t do God here.' Well, of course, he does do God, and he reports that his actions have been put before God and confirmed, as if somehow God has signed a chit for him. I think that the question of somebody’s religious faith is absolutely central to what we think of them, if we are members of the electorate. We have to know. If it is, for example, somebody’s conviction, widely held among Christians in the United States, that the second coming of Christ is not possible 'til the Greater Israel is established, we need to know that. That's an important political perception. In Blair’s case, I would have asked him that question, and I’d have pressed him on it. I’d have asked him whether God had ever restrained him. I find it very strange that we elect a politician who then claims to serve a higher deity who guides him: 'I did what I believe is right.' Well, will you tell us, please, how that relates to the Christian ethic? Do you believe in war first and negotiation afterwards? Exactly how does this work?"
John Le Carre.

Are you absolutely sure that social welfare advocates are closet atheists? If you think that Jesus, for instance, or any of the prophets, proclaimed the primacy of profits and the personhood of corporations, then I think you are attaching yourself to a whole different Christianity than I am familiar with. "The Gospel of Success" has been preached in America for a long time too. Baptist John D. Rockefeller famously said, "God gave me my money," and the implication of a whole thing of thinking from the Puritans on has been that worldly success is a mark of God's favor (and the converse is that depressions and economic stagnation are a sign of His displeasure). I wouldn't start questioning someone's religious sentiments on the basis of their economic beliefs, but I think there are many sincere non-social-welfare Christians who may also be said to have an obsession with Mammon.

Elites in the U.S. don't live under foreign military occupation, while much of the Muslim world does. This is a crucial difference between the differing world views Justin reviews in his column.

I think we're not understanding the nature of this current uprising against the U.S. if we just look at it from a "cultural" point of view, or a "Clash Of Civilizations" perspective. The main problem with this focus on the Islamic religion is that it doesn't take into account the universality of resistance to Euro-American colonialism across all borders of culture and language.

Take, say, the start date of the Algerian War of Independence against the French Empire on November 1, 1954. Just months after the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu. Obviously, the success of the Vietnamese independence campaign inspired the Algerians to do the same thing, and a bitter eight year war to kick the French out began.

So what was that war all about? A war for Buddhism? A war to expel the same foreign occupier is what was. Two nations thousands of miles apart and totally different culturally and linguistically. And they had the same message for their French occupiers: Get your goddamn boots off our necks, get out of our countries and leave us alone.

If I had to vote for the greatest anti-colonial uprising of all time, it would be for the Tet uprising in 1968. This coupled with the nine decade campaign of resistance to expel the French make the Vietnamese the most stubborn resisters of the Euro-American enterprise of all time in my book. Again, this had nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with not wanting foreigners trampling your sovereignty.

I consider the embassy attacks in Muslim countries today to be just another chapter in resistance to Euro-American imperialism. The gosh awful "film" was just the spark that set the powder keg off.

Why isn't our reaction (media and some people) to the protests and flag burning over-done? Why is it okay to produce the film as freedom of speech, yet to protest it or burn a flag is not?
Not trying to take anything from the tragic deaths or condoning violence but protesting and flag burning shouldn't warrant an over the top response from the US. After all that has happened you would think Americans too would be a bit more understanding.

LLook Jan, I was reading you posts in amusement, but I have to reply to you and this genius, Mick, above. A few hundred people turn to protest violently is enough for you to label 2 billion muslims?
For your information, most of the muslims I know, and I live in a muslim country, went on with their lives like nothing had happened and ridiculed those rioting in the streets.
I sincerely believe most of those rioters were egged on by either fanatic sheiks with IQ's lower than 50 to be popular or by agents who want this to happen.
Let me ask you a question: Saudi Arabia is the most observant Muslim country, there were no riots. care to comment?
Sorry to tell you that I think your posting here is suspect.

Now that the shit has already hit the fan in Libya, are Obama and company so sure that they want to follow through with the wrecking of Syria? I suspect we're going to see an about face from the "Assad must go" line and a more realistic approach to Syria policy. Yes, they can overthrow Assad, but then what? Is having it their way worth the price of the Balkanization of the entire region? Without any foreign intervention from the air, Assad will continue to dig in and crush the Western back "rebels". I suspect that Obama is going to let him do it for the sake of stability in the region.

There was a lot of chattering about getting rid of the Sauds in neo-con circles after 9/11, and then it was just dropped. That's the problem you have when you're only friends in the Gulf are these awful royal families. You don't have any friends to help govern any transition into a new regime.

Now that the s h i t has already hit the fan in Libya, are Obama and company so sure that they want to follow through with the wrecking of Syria? I suspect we're going to see an about face from the "Assad must go" line and a more realistic approach to Syria policy. Yes, they can overthrow Assad, but then what? Is having it their way worth the price of the Balkanization of the entire region? Without any foreign intervention from the air, Assad will continue to dig in and crush the Western back "rebels". I suspect that Obama is going to let him do it for the sake of stability in the region.

There was a lot of chatter about getting rid of the Sauds in neo-con circles after 9/11, and then it was just dropped. That's the problem you have when you're only friends in the Gulf are these awful royal families. You don't have any friends to help govern any transition into a new regime.

I do not know who you are referring to as "suspect" but I will try to answer you. First of all we are in agreement about the Sheiks pushing people to do things. That is what I said. The rest of my comments are based actual observation of Muslim men in South East Asia. Their behavior towards the women were anything but pious. In fact, most of the girls would not have anything to do with them no matter how much they paid. I would get into specifics but it is just beyond the pale and the abusiveness toward the women was horrible. I know you can say this is just a small percentage that go to these places, and your right. But we are talking about thousands of men. Now that said I have been to Syria, Egypt, Morroco, Turkey, Pakistan, Malaysia, Jordan and Tunisia. I met some of the most hospitable people on this planet. I am disgusted by what is happening in Syria as those people are especially kind. Thaypt sail my original comment had to do with the protests about cartoons, movies, etc etc.maybe we can learn something from the Budhists.

Sorry I was not clear there. I did not mean to suggest that such are closet atheists, but just to point out that they behave in similar fashion. “Ye shall know them by their fruits.”(Mathew 7:16)
The 20th century of socialism was not constrained to Germany, Russia, China and so on. The product of generations of 20th century Western society is your so-called “social welfare” alongside mountains of bodies in associated wars all over the world, an unserviceable colossus of debt, failing welfare, and a clearly non-Christian outlook on our relationship to each other as well as the foreign world. Welfare cannot be a function of state theft and redistribution whether the theft is domestic or foreign. An end will be reached and I think it is now coming quickly.

The attribution of 'person-hood' to a government-constituted group is to my mind abhorrent whether the creature is a corporation, a union, or whatever aberration issues from the legal, bureaucratic and otherwise secular mind. These things are operated by humans and they are the parties responsible for their actions. I believe the welfare of our society should, will depend upon the actions of each of the populace, not the imagined generosity of some king, parliament or congress. The non-social-welfare Christian, or any Christian obsessed with Mammon is oxymoronic. Jesus instructed that one cannot have two masters.

The king at whatever level should concern himself with the interdiction and punishment of other evil-doers such as himself. I realize of course that this sort of belief removes me from the bulk of society to a by-gone age. So be it.

Mike
There is a fantasy movie going on in your head if you think that Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the World.
But if you want to talk about abused women, then anyone who has had any real experience in this life, knows that many abused people have had the pride and the strength of independence leached out of them over a period of years. You can be a prisoner within your own mind if defeated often enough. Such a person has not the will to walk away but will physically attack you under the right circumstances.

What about the Satanic Verses? Muslims were outraged over a book considered blasphemy. It resulted in assassination attempts, a deadly riot in Pakistan, and Fatwa for the death of those behind the book. All this over a book.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_…

What about the Satanic Verses? Muslims were outraged over a book considered blasphemy. It resulted in assassination attempts, a deadly riot in Pakistan, and Fatwa for the death of those behind the book. All this over a book.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_…

James, I don't claim that ALL Muslims are insanely defensive about their faith. Yet if we look around the Muslim world we don't find many nations in which criticism of Islam is tolerated. Even in "moderate" states we find people arrested for "blasphemy." Is this a reflection of a general attitude among Muslims? I don't see how else such laws could stand.

I agree when it comes to resistance to imperialism, but that doesn't explain Muslim attitudes towards blasphemy.

Are we to believe that a 12 year old Pakistani Christian was arrested for blasphemy due to western imperialism? Or that criticism of Islam is all but outlawed in most Muslim countries due to Bush and Obama?

Fact is, Islam is to many Muslims what Christianity was to Europeans in the Middle Ages: a sacred cow that you only diss if you have a death wish. Such lunacy shouldn't be confused with anti-imperialism.

I don't think Lincoln Roosevelt,Hitler, Truman, Churchill, Mussolini and of course the Japanese were Christian in any meaningful sense. Lincoln was a heathen who used Christian language to get votes. Hitler commited suicide in a final rejection of Christianity. Money and power were their gods. I can't think of many politicians who have religious scrupples.

I have no respect for this kind of debate being sparked by the likes of the amateur garbage on display in this "film". I mean it's like all they did was say that all Muslims eat babies, and we're supposed to be surprised that Muslims are upset about it, and give them lectures about freedom of speech. Easy to do from the arm chair of privilege in the U.S., free from the meddling influence of aggressive foreign occupiers.

Jan Burton,
If one looks around, one can find pockets of "Middle Ages" attitudes towards Christianity even now, right here in America. As a kid growing up in very ethnic, very Catholic Pittsburgh, I remember when a Pirate double-header on Sunday had to be over or called at 7 PM because playing baseball after 7 PM offended God, I guess. Stores were closed on Sundays and you could be socially ostracized for eating meat on Fridays. Even today, selling someone a beer on a Sunday is a misdemeanor throughout the South.

Jan, if you life in the muslim world you will find heavy criticism of Muslims and some aspects of the interpretations of Islam. The issue is that I do not believe you speak Arabic to get exposed to these debates. There is a big difference between criticizing specifics and labeling the whole belief itself in a negative way which is deeply insulting. Having said that, I do not condone or encourage what some ignorants are doing in the name of Islam, they are in the extreme minority as I explained.

Sorry Mick, i did not mean to offend.
Please understand that people living in different parts of the world have different cultures that sometimes trump their religious teachings. In S.E. asia and India women are of very low status and are treated badly by society. For example in India Muslims, Hindus and Christians mistreat their women.
My point is read carefully about Islam form trusted sources, not the whack jobs in saudi arabia or the zionist well poisoners. And always remember that Muslims are NOT islam.

What is perplexing; why bomb a US Embassy, if you don't want America in the region? I can see protests over a movie, but what was bombing the embassy going to do? Why blame America for being in the region?

"On 24 February 2011, politicians, former military officers, tribal leaders, academics and businessmen held a meeting in the eastern city of Bayda.[13] The meeting was chaired by former justice minister Mustafa Abdul Jalil, who quit the Jamahiriya government a few days before. The delegates discussed proposals for interim administration with many delegates asking for UN intervention in Libya.[14] The podium at the meeting displayed the pre-Jamahiriya flag" Wikipedia

"ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast — The president of the West African bloc of nations said Monday it "can no longer hesitate" to combat terrorism and criminality in northern Mali, which was overrun by Islamists.

Earlier this month, Mali's interim government requested military intervention, including aerial support and five battalions but leaders of a March coup, who retain considerable influence in Mali's capital Bamako, have previously opposed foreign intervention."

Aren't we the policemen of the world and, "if we don't do it someone else will", as they say.

I think ultimately the Islamic claim is the only way that Judaism isn't responsible for killing Jesus (did he blasphemously declare himself God?) Muslims say no, that he was never killed, and never declared himself divine. Muslims DO believe he is the Messiah, which is pretty special, I'd say. Though we must remember that Jews have no indication that the Messiah is divine. This is a creation of Constantine, and there is no clear declaration by Jesus that he's divine, that we should worship, or bow down to him. The Messiah's job IS to show the way. I suggest you read the "Paraclete" verses as Mohammad–"unless he comes to tell the truth about me, I can't return"

I don't know, but it's really the only way that the three faiths can be reconciled, is to denounce the Trinity. Mohammad says he's not divine, and basically extends the same message of one God of Abraham. He encourages tolerance for all people of the book. Islam is the only one of the three traditions that suggest that not only Muslims will enter heaven, but so would righteous and worthy Jews, Christians and all that accepted worshiped the One god. I'm not trying to proselytize but it is drawing from your comments

Absolutely. Another issue that rankles me is that we are conflating the attack in Libya (ostensibly to avenge Al Libi, as Zawahiri called for in his 9/11 speech,) with all the other protests. There were no RPGs in Egypt, nor have we seen coordinated attacks as in Libya.

I mostly remember that there wasn't much outrage. The fatwa was issued but it wasn't a real grievance. Look they have long running issues with our foreign policy. If you don't get that you have to treat even whores with respect or they get bitter. What about the Qurans we've burned, the dead we peed on, the women and children killed by our drones and our policies? When we disrespect them on top of these slights against them in their own lands, they're eager to show their displeasure.

do you really think that if they depicted Jesus as a pedophile that there wouldn't be some riots? Again, you're failing to walk a mile in their shoes, and really consider the role of American colonialism in subverting their trade, their gov'ts, their civil rights–and for many more, their right to life

Idiot, WE"RE IN THEIR COUNTRIES. They can't leave–WE"RE the ones who need to leave. You two got so lost in your analogy, your forgot what it pertains to. WE'RE IN THEIR LAND,. WE'RE BOMBING THEM, WE"RE UNDERMINING THEIR GOV'TS. You're ignoring a big log in your own eye, while obsessing on a splinter in theirs

The Salafists want to show that the gov't can't keep order, and can't be trusted. Let's also remember that Ambassador Stevens was arming these guys 6 mos before the no fly zone. Let's focus too on the fact that we're doing the same thing in Syria right now.

What an short sighted embarrassment all this talk is. To the devoutly religious, secular political talk is secondary to the guiding principles of religion. To the devoutly secular, religious talk unnecessarily interferes with the uber-important political issues. Let's sit around a debate all day whose position is right.

But lets NEVER, NEVER, EVER acknowledge that they are equal versions of the same thing, targeting the same aims, using the same tactics, to the same end, and strengthening the resolve of the believers in one through constant agitation using the counterpoint represented by the other.

Never have I seen a greater exercise in futility than watching the religious debate the secularists over the merits of their doctrine over the other. All while both represent trained subjects, armed with someone else's script, debating the same spoonfed issues in a battle of faith versus faith, where facts are insignificant and thus no end is ever reached, or even intended. How long does everyone intend to be the unwilling-yet-willing participants in this obvious ruse to foster political division, justification for war, and the anger and frustration borne out of the logical contradictions set up by both doctrines?

Why do you think we have been fighting "Secular vs Religous" wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for a decade. Because the war machine is set up to subsist and enrich its benefactors via endless war. And what is their tactic for assuring perpetual war with no attainable resolution?

Secular versus Religious. Two manufactured doctrines, perpetually in conflict by design, backed by legions or rabid and devout supporters, and capable of no logical, political or faithful rectification. You vow to make a stand for your side by doing something they hate, and they in turn repeat the favor by doing the thing you hate, which leads you back to square one. How long will you all perpetuate this self defeating futility? We are all on the same side and our common enemy are the string pullers of religion and politics. Their side always wins and we always lose when we devoutly follow them into these phony, futile, and manufactured debates.

So stop pointing fingers, arguing the strategy and righteousness of your side, or condemning the sins of your opponent. YOU are all the players in this game. YOU and your willful participation in this ruse is the real thing perpetuating the sins you fight against. YOU and your willful participation in this ruse are what provide the fuel to keep the battle raging. Your devotion to your doctrine is what allows them to control the world simply by putting your doctrine into conflict with another, and its devoted supporters. Grow up. Open your eyes. Stop this juvenile, spiteful, and predictable behavior while you still have a world left to enjoy. Secular or religious, you will never be FREE so long as you are a slave to a millennia-old ruse, that has killed and kept in bondage more men than have ever lived free.

Wake up. Stop being manipulated. Think for yourself and mind your own business. These things alone will change the world faster and better than religion or politics ever could. They were never even intended to…

What an short sighted embarrassment all this talk is. To the devoutly religious, secular political talk is secondary to the guiding principles of religion. To the devoutly secular, religious talk unnecessarily interferes with the uber-important political issues. Let's sit around a debate all day whose position is right.

But lets NEVER, NEVER, EVER acknowledge that they are equal versions of the same thing, targeting the same aims, using the same tactics, to the same end, and strengthening the resolve of the believers in one through constant agitation using the counterpoint represented by the other.

Never have I seen a greater exercise in futility than watching the religious debate the secularists over the merits of their doctrine over the other. All while both represent trained subjects, armed with someone else's script, debating the same spoonfed issues in a battle of faith versus faith, where facts are insignificant and thus no end is ever reached, or even intended. How long does everyone intend to be the unwilling-yet-willing participants in this obvious ruse to foster political division, justification for war, and the anger and frustration borne out of the logical contradictions set up by both doctrines?

Why do you think we have been fighting "Secular vs Religous" wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for a decade. Because the war machine is set up to subsist and enrich its benefactors via endless war. And what is their tactic for assuring perpetual war with no attainable resolution?

Secular versus Religious. Two manufactured doctrines, perpetually in conflict by design, backed by legions or rabid and devout supporters, and capable of no logical, political or faithful rectification. You vow to make a stand for your side by doing something they hate, and they in turn repeat the favor by doing the thing you hate, which leads you back to square one. How long will you all perpetuate this self defeating futility? We are all on the same side and our common enemy are the string pullers of religion and politics. Their side always wins and we always lose when we devoutly follow them into these phony, futile, and manufactured debates.

So stop pointing fingers, arguing the strategy and righteousness of your side, or condemning the sins of your opponent. YOU are all the players in this game. YOU and your willful participation in this ruse is the real thing perpetuating the sins you fight against. YOU and your willful participation in this ruse are what provide the fuel to keep the battle raging. Your devotion to your doctrine is what allows them to control the world simply by putting your doctrine into conflict with another, and its devoted supporters. Grow up. Open your eyes. Stop this juvenile, spiteful, and predictable behavior while you still have a world left to enjoy. Secular or religious, you will never be FREE so long as you are a slave to a millennia-old ruse, that has killed and kept in bondage more men than have ever lived free.

Wake up. Stop being manipulated. Think for yourself and mind your own business. These things alone will change the world faster and better than religion or politics ever could. They were never even intended to…

I disagree. Religious war have killed more. I mean Hitler alone ( hitler was a chirstian) killed 10 million. The fact is no athesist has ever killed in the name of athesim. Stalin who was an athesist was deeply influcened by christianity as a child.http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatz.htm#RelC…

I have a question for all on this forum now, and I believe there are little left:
What do you think about the british courts banning the naked pictures of Prince Harry's wife? Is that freedom of speech or not?

Since every well explained post is censored here, let me try a quickie.

Justin is making no point. He is right about the video being an obvious plant, one that is achieving its intended purpose. But by offering any opinions on what is the 'appropriate response' he is only participating in the "secular vs religious" paradigm that by design has been used to keep the world in a perpetual state of conflict for millennia. This debate is structured so that there can never be a resolution, but rather justification for endless conflict. War is not its consequence, it is its intended purpose. What more evidence do you need than all of history? In WWII we were the morally righteous country fighting rogue idealogues. Today we are democracy-spreading intellectuals fighting religious fundamentalists. The 'wars' on drugs and terrorism are political actions driven by moral justifications, yet even these kill and imprison many innocents. In all cases the outcome is the same. War. One where you suffer or die and they get rich. The table is set and reset over and over, the arguments revised and the lines redrawn (always by someone else), but in the end you always some version of politics in conflict with religion accompanied by war. In a country with such a big and obvious military industrial complex, who can't see that all public discourse is manufactured to promote this ongoing agenda. This is the real issue. Justin misses it completely.

So save your gotcha points, pensive observations and witty retorts, like the ones above. Any manner of participation in this ruse is the very assurance of its success and perpetuation. Who among you is possessed of the small amount of rationality and logic it takes to see this obvious reality? Religion and politics are the same wolf in different clothes. They are tools of the same people used for the same purpose. So long as you get sucked into the game, it doesn't matter which side you're on. You lose and they win. Discussion of any lesser point is not only inane, but a self imposed life sentence of more of the same.

Since every well explained post is censored here, let me try a quickie.

Justin is making no point. He is right about the video being an obvious plant, one that is achieving its intended purpose. But by offering any opinions on what is the 'appropriate response' he is only participating in the "secular vs religious" paradigm that by design has been used to keep the world in a perpetual state of conflict for millennia. This debate is structured so that there can never be a resolution, but rather justification for endless conflict. War is not its consequence, it is its intended purpose. What more evidence do you need than all of history? In WWII we were the morally righteous country fighting rogue idealogues. Today we are democracy-spreading intellectuals fighting religious fundamentalists. The 'wars' on drugs and terrorism are political actions driven by moral justifications, yet even these kill and imprison many innocents. In all cases the outcome is the same. War. One where you suffer or die and they get rich. The table is set and reset over and over, the arguments revised and the lines redrawn (always by someone else), but in the end you always some version of politics in conflict with religion accompanied by war. In a country with such a big and obvious military industrial complex, who can't see that all public discourse is manufactured to promote this ongoing agenda. This is the real issue. Justin misses it completely.

So save your gotcha points, pensive observations and witty retorts, like the ones above. Any manner of participation in this ruse is the very assurance of its success and perpetuation. Who among you is possessed of the small amount of rationality and logic it takes to see this obvious reality? Religion and politics are the same wolf in different clothes. They are tools of the same people used for the same purpose. So long as you get sucked into the game, it doesn't matter which side you're on. You lose and they win. Discussion of any lesser point is not only inane, but a self imposed life sentence of more of the same.

[…] clearly familiar with these sources of outrage, and advocates regularly for their end. However, a recent post of his about the protests over the film, while on the ball about intervention, otherwise takes what […]

In what possible way was Hitler a Christian?! And please do not say that he was raised a Christian. What nonsense! No one has any control over which religion their parents tried to raise them into. Hitler's actions were in no way made in the name of Christianity. Cite just one teaching of Jesus that advocated Hitler's actions. Hitler, like all dictators, used religion (and not just Christianity) to help manipulate the masses. But that does not in any logical way indicate that he was a practicing Christian. Dittos that even more so for the even more insane Stalin, who as a one time seminary student later flat out rejected Christianity. And FWY I am not a Christian. You may not like Christians but at least get your facts straight.

Your point about Hitler not actually doing the killing is correct. But that is true for all governments where power is concentrated into the hands of just one man. The greatest mass murderer in history is government. Why people are so willing to follow along with such madness is an interesting topic for later.

The point here is the claim by anti-Christians that Hitler and Stalin were Christians and their evil was committed because of their Christian beliefs. This is nonsense.

What is frightening today is that we are witnessing this same manipulation of Christianity for the mindless adulteration of The State. Many churches have special services glorifying America's military, especially the Mega Churches and especially around Memorial Day, Fourth of July, and Veteran's Day. All for the glory of war.

Which begs the question: can anyone cite for me Jesus' call for bloodlust?

One can claim to be or can be accused of being a Christian but it is only through their following of Jesus' actual teachings can they really be called a Christian.

And I reiterate: I am not a Christian. I may not agree with Christianity but at least I know of what it stands for.

The propaganda by the Christian churches in regard to their role during WWII in Fascist Italy, Yugoslavia, and Nazi Germany has so conditioned their believers that most of them believe that Christianity played an honorable role at best, and only a silent role at worst. Yet there seems little recognition that the very framework of the beliefs owned by the Fascists and Nazis came from their Christian upbringing from church, school, and Christian traditions. The entire anti-Jewish and racial sentiments came not from some new philosophy or unique ideology, but rather from centuries of Christian preaching against the Jews, gypsies, and heretics. This comes especially true for European countries, for the Christian practice of crusades, inquisitions and holy wars occurred in their own backyards. Moreover, the wars conducted by Providence, approved by God, appears so often in the Bible, and practiced by Christians throughout the centuries has disciplined Christians to believe that they could engage in offensive war honorably and even worse– morally.

One must remember that the Catholic raised and Protestant conditioned Hitler took his cause of war for an expanded Germany and his fight against the Jews, for Providence's sake, and a fight for the Lord. He appealed to his fellow German Christians to put him in power and he achieved popular support. I find it unimaginable that Hitler, without this religious foundation, could have churches, politicians and citizens electing him into office, much less have acted against the Jews.

Hitler's anti-Semitism grew out of his Christian education. Christian Austria and Germany in his time took for granted the belief that Jews held an inferior status to Aryan Christians. Jewish hatred did not spring from Hitler, it came from the preaching of Catholic priests and Protestant ministers throughout Germany for hundreds of years. The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews and their Jewish religion. In his book, "On the Jews and their Lies," Luther set the standard for Jewish hatred in Protestant Germany up until World War II. Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther.

Hitler did not have to parade his belief in God, as so many American Christians do now. Nor did he have to justify his Godly belief against an Atheist movement. He took his beliefs for granted just as most Germans did at that time. His thrust aimed at politics, not religion. But through his political and religious reasoning he established in 1933, a German Reich Christian Church, uniting the Protestant churches to instill faith in a national German Christianity.

Before you can follow jesus teachings you have to actully prove he existed. No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations.

Whether Jesus actually existed or not is irrelevant. A religious movement was started 2,000 years ago called Christianity and continues to this day. It has certain principles based on the teachings (either real or made up – it does not matter concerning this argument) of a man named Jesus. And the cornerstone principle of Christianity is Jesus' ultimate commandment – the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (and yes Christianity does not have a patent on this belief).

That many, if not most, people who have claimed to be Christians have failed to live up to that creed does not make the creed wrong; it merely provides the proof of the fallibility of man.

Yet again I ask: cite for me Jesus' call for bloodlust of man against man?

In what way was Hitler/ Stalin/ Mussolini/Mao/Pol Pot et al following The Golden Rule?

As for the wars in the Bible, you are confusing the Old Testament with the New Testament. Jesus never called upon his followers to put to the sword those who would not accept him. Turn the other cheek and all that…

"Hitler's anti-Semitism… took for granted the belief that Jews held an inferior status to Aryan Christians." Hitler did not hate the Jews because of religious differences but rather because of racial differences.

Nietzsche and Wagner had far more influence on Hitler's beliefs and subsequent actions than any childhood church. Blood and Iron and all that…

[…] clearly familiar with these sources of outrage, and advocates regularly for their end. However, a recent post of his about the protests over the film, while on the ball about intervention, otherwise takes what […]

Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com, and a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute. He is a contributing editor at The American Conservative, and writes a monthly column for Chronicles. He is the author of Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement [Center for Libertarian Studies, 1993; Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2000], and An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard [Prometheus Books, 2000].